Europe at War

[Todd]

I realize Todd has a hard time comprehending this, but...
Human rights and democracy promotion, and the expansion of them to countries where they aren't now, is important for US strategic and economic goals.

I am very familiar with arguments for the US actively promoting democracy and human rights around the world.  I recognize that such arguments are innately messianic and have their origin in the Progressive Era, which was strongly influenced by European colonialism with its spurious "arguments".  In essence, democracy and human rights promotion carry the strong stench of the White Man's Burden.  Promoting democracy and human rights does not always or often align with the security or economic goals of the US, if at all. 

Democracy is historically and culturally rare around the world.  Democracy may or may not emerge in countries with no history of democracy, but it will never become universal.  It is dangerous folly to think it will.  It is not the responsibility of the US to promote democracy or human rights. 

Your personalized post demonstrates the great difficulty many Westerners have in grasping the fact that Western ideas are neither universal nor universally desired.

[Que]

The EU announces a new package of sanctions against Russia:



From left to right: the prime minister of Finland, the president of the European Commission, the prime minister of Estonia and the deputy prime minister of Sweden.

As they say: a picture speaks a thousand words...

[Todd]

As they say: a picture speaks a thousand words...

Which would include the following words: four women in a cynically staged photo-op announce supposedly bold actions that purportedly include tough new sanctions against Russian oil, but that everyone in the world knows will be ignored by non-Western countries and circumvented by European powers willing to look the other way and buy Russian oil delivered via Greek and other shipping firms, as they've been doing all along.  This illicit behavior will intensify if Russia really does shut off gas flowing through Ukraine and Turkey.

[Todd]

From The Economist: Europe faces an enduring crisis of energy and geopolitics; This will weaken it and threaten its global position

A good article from The Economist, at least in its descriptive elements.  The prescriptive bits are dodgy.  The mere idea of US taxpayers subsidizing Europeans directly is obscene.

And there's this rather critical bit about energy prices (aka, Russia using energy as a weapon):

Vladimir Putin's energy weapon will exact a toll beyond Ukraine. Our modelling suggests that, in a normal winter, a 10% rise in real energy prices is associated with a 0.6% increase in deaths. Hence the energy crunch this year could cause over 100,000 extra deaths of elderly people across Europe. If so, Mr Putin's energy weapon could take more lives outside Ukraine than his artillery, missiles and drones do directly within it.

No negotiations.  Keep fighting.

[prémont]

The EU announces a new package of sanctions against Russia:



From left to right: the prime minister of Finland, the president of the European Commission, the prime minister of Estonia and the deputy prime minister of Sweden.

As they say: a picture speaks a thousand words...

Hmm. Female power it seems. But maybe it's the female power, which in the long run will save us from the masculine aggression insofar as the women give up playing along on men's terms.

[Todd]

But maybe it's the female power, which in the long run will save us from the masculine aggression insofar as the women give up playing along on men's terms.

History suggests that is wishful thinking.

[Florestan]

The EU announces a new package of sanctions against Russia:



From left to right: the prime minister of Finland, the president of the European Commission, the prime minister of Estonia and the deputy prime minister of Sweden.

As they say: a picture speaks a thousand words...

Yes it does: an old, unattractive lady (EU) stands among three sexy babes... 

[prémont]

History suggests that is wishful thinking.

It's wishful thinking which keeps us alive in the widest sense.

[prémont]

Yes it does: an old, unattractive lady (EU) stands among three sexy babes... 

Men place too much importance on women's appearance.

[Florestan]

It's wishful thinking which keeps us alive in the widest sense.

History shows that women, especially those in positions of power, can be just as violent, ruthless and bellicose as men.

[Florestan]

Men place too much importance on women's appearance.

It's human nature (or, if you prefer, a product of evolution). 

[Todd]

It's wishful thinking which keeps us alive in the widest sense.

No, not really.  It is pragmatic acceptance of facts and adaptive creativity in solving problems that keeps us alive.  Wishful thinking is usually a harmful diversion.

Your bit of wishful thinking ignores ancient and contemporary history and is also sexist.

[prémont]

History shows that women, especially those in positions of power, can be just as violent, ruthless and bellicose as men.

Indeed. This was why I wrote:

Hmm. Female power it seems. But maybe it's the female power, which in the long run will save us from the masculine aggression insofar as the women give up playing along on men's terms.

[Florestan]

Indeed. This was why I wrote:

You have just agreed that feminine aggression is no different than masculine aggression so singling out a specific sex as aggressive is moot, or even sexist. It's not men's terms and it's not women's terms. It's human nature's terms.

[Madiel]

You have just agreed that feminine aggression is no different than masculine aggression so singling out a specific sex as aggressive is moot, or even sexist. It's not men's terms and it's not women's terms. It's human nature's terms.

No. Because you had the words "CAN BE". You've gone and changed that to "IS". These are not the same statements.

I can happily agree that women can be as tall as men without agreeing that there is no difference in average height.

[Florestan]

No. Because you had the words "CAN BE". You've gone and changed that to "IS". These are not the same statements.

I can happily agree that women can be as tall as men without agreeing that there is no difference in average height.

I should have thought that when it comes to history, "can be" equals "is" (as in, Elisabeth I can be as ruthless as Henry VIII), but nevertheless I'll reformulate it : history, ever since it began to be recorded up until nowadays, has been full of women who were just as violent, ruthless and bellicose as men.

[prémont]

No, not really.  It is pragmatic acceptance of facts and adaptive creativity in solving problems that keeps us alive.  Wishful thinking is usually a harmful diversion.

I mean keeps us alive mentally for the short time we live, of course not physically where anything can happen.

[prémont]

It's human nature (or, if you prefer, a product of evolution). 

I'm naive enough to se humans as more than bare animals.

[prémont]

I should have thought that when it comes to history, "can be" equals "is" (as in, Elisabeth I can be as ruthless as Henry VIII), but nevertheless I'll reformulate it : history, ever since it began to be recorded up until nowadays, has been full of women who were just as violent, ruthless and bellicose as men.

Yes, you can list some terrifying examples, but I am also so naive to think, that women generally are more species-preserving than men - maybe for natural reasons.

[Madiel]

I should have thought that when it comes to history, "can be" equals "is" (as in, Elisabeth I can be as ruthless as Henry VIII), but nevertheless I'll reformulate it : history, ever since it began to be recorded up until nowadays, has been full of women who were just as violent, ruthless and bellicose as men.

Well no, "can be" is not the appropriate wording. The claim would be that Elizabeth "was" as ruthless as Henry.

But now that we've got the linguistic problem out of the way... I'm not sure that I agree with the point you're making or the relevance of old history to the way that power is wielded in modern times. Both men and women fall on a spectrum. I don't think the spectrum is quite the same. That you can find particular women who are "masculine" in their behaviour does not mean that all women would be, though for a long time in history the way for a woman to succeed and rise to power was pretty much to behave in a "masculine" fashion. But I think in some parts of the world that is changing. It's no accident where the women in that photo come from.

If you want to talk about Elizabeth I, behaving "like a man" was pretty much a mandatory requirement for her own survival. For the first part of her reign there were people barely tolerating that she was female. After all, the rules explicitly preferred a male ruler and her own father had been obsessed with having a male heir. I would like to think that things have changed a bit over 600 years.